|
|
|
| Anti-tumor-angiogenesis effect of Cinobufagin Injection on colon cancer transplantation model |
| FENG Baoyue* YANG Ying* WANG Chaoran ZHENG Junchao FEI Pengfei HU Ye WU Na ZUO Minghuan |
| Oncology Department, Dongfang Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100078, China |
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To investigate anti-tumor-angiogenesis effect of Cinobufagin Injection on colon cancer transplantation model. Methods Mice were administered with CT26 cells by subcutaneous injection to establish colon cancer transplantation model. Then, modeled mice were divided randomly into 5 groups: high dose of Cinobufagin Injection group (CINO-H group), medium dose of Cinobufagin Injection group (CINO-M group), low dose of Cinobufagin Injection group (CINO-L group), 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) group and normal saline group, with 4 mice in each group. CINO-H group was given Cinobufagin Injection 0.5 mL, CINO-M group was given Cinobufagin Injection 0.25 mL + normal saline 0.25 mL, CINO-L group was given Cinobufagin Injection 0.125 mL+normal saline 0.375 mL, 5-FU group was given 5-FU Injection 20 mg/kg, allocated to 0.5 mL with normal saline, normal saline group was given normal saline 0.5 mL. The mice were injected intraperitoneally with drugs once a day, for 7 days. Tumor formation conditions were observed, and pathological examination of transplanted tumor and tumor microvascular density (MVD) was measured. Results The tumor volume of 5-FU group was lower than that of normal saline group (P ＜ 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference in tumor volume between all Cinobufagin Injection groups and normal saline group (P ＞ 0.05). Histopathological observation showed that Cinobufagin Injection caused the tumor necrosis in different degrees, which was inferior to 5-FU. All Cinobufagin Injection groups decreased MVD in tumor, and significant difference was shown in comparison with those in normal saline group (P ＜ 0.01). While, 5-FU group couldn't decrease MVD in tumor (P ＞ 0.05). Conclusion Cinobufagin Injection can decrease MVD in tumor by inhibiting tumor-angiogenesis, thus inhibiting tumor growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 贾小晴，孙萍.华蟾素抗肿瘤成分及作用机制研究进展[J].辽宁中医药大学学报，2017，19（3）：215-217.
[2] 周俊，刘明华.华蟾素治疗实体肿瘤的临床研究进展[J].世界最新医学信息文摘，2018，18（14）：33-34.
[3] 庄克川，周琴，李泉旺，等.华蟾素注射液腔内灌注治疗恶性浆膜腔积液134例的临床观察[J].现代中医临床，2015，22（6）：20-24.
[4] 袁莉，孙韬，周琴，等.华蟾素注射液腹腔灌注治疗恶性腹水102例的临床观察[J].中国医药导报，2014，11（22）：54-59.
[5] 周琴.华蟾素注射液胸腹腔灌注治疗恶性胸腹腔积液的临床研究[D].北京：北京中医药大学，2012.
[6] 关润芝.重组人血管内皮抑制素联合化疗药物治疗恶性胸腹水患者的疗效[J].中国医药指南，2016，14（20）：141-142.
[7] 胡凯文，李泉旺，梁桢桢.肝动脉泵入华蟾素对肝脏供血系统及脾动脉的影响[C]//浙江：第三届国际中医、中西医结合肿瘤学术交流大会暨第十二界全国中西医结合肿瘤学术大会，2010.
[8] Weidner N，Folkman J，Pozza F，et al. Tumor Angiogenesis：A New Significant and Independent Prognostic Indicator in Early-Stage Breast Carcinoma [J]. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute，1992，84（24）：1875-1887.
[9] 吴义春，蔡逗逗，汪晓庆，等.肿瘤血管生成方式的研究进展（综述）[J].安徽卫生职业技术学院学报，2017，16（2）：107-109.
[10] 刘浩，林洪生，花宝金，等.华蟾素调控VEGF/VEGFR-2信号传导抑制肿瘤血管生成的研究[J].中华中医药学刊，2008，26（11）：2489-2491.
[11] 刘琳，陈宝安，秦叔逵，等.三氧化二砷联合华蟾素抗裸鼠人肝癌移植瘤血管新生的作用[J].中国中西医结合杂志，2011，31（1）：67-72.
[12] 薛瑞，张青松，张玉洁，等.华蟾素对乳腺癌MCF-7移植瘤裸鼠的抗肿瘤作用及机制研究[J].实用药物与临床，2014，17（7）：815-817.
[13] 朱晓燕，孟志强，陈震，等.华蟾素注射剂对荷人胰腺癌细胞株SW1990裸小鼠的抑瘤作用[J].中国临床药学杂志，2013，22（5）：290-293. |
|
|
|
